China has arguably the best privacy laws. In China the state really will go the extra mile to protect the privacy of all government agencies that have access to your emails.
You must be referring to this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149.
Well you might be able to block them with deep pigeon inspection. If not a man on the firewall with a shotgun ("Media Sentry") will do the job easily.
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)
was quoted out of context by Rabbi Daniel Lapin in his letter to Julius Streicher and the continuation:
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
is attributable to him. (complete text: http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm)
The original passage from Mein Kampf was:"The folkish state 1 must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so."
You might want it but the US arms industry doesn't :
If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industry). Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers...:-)
The European Parliament gets elected directly by the people whereas the other bodies get assigned by the national governments.
In regards to whether it is half-arsed or not you will find that the US does not want a united Europe because it will not be able to sell as many weapons / interfere as easily in domestic politics like the various US government bribing groups dictate (see political party donations in the US). If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industries).
Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers.
The European Parliament gets elected directly by the people whereas the other bodies get assigned by the national governments.
In regards to whether it is half-arsed or not you will find that the US does not want a united Europe because it will not be able to sell as many weapons / interfere as easily in domestic politics like the various US government bribing groups dictate (see political party donations in the US). If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industries).
Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers.
....and making sure that potential exploits like buffer overflows are blocked in advance. (Just use a malloc replacement that prevents them.)
Can you please enlighten me on this: I was always under the impression that you will need to overflow a buffer in the stack and overwrite the function return, but the parent is saying that a malloc replacement would overcome that. I am genuinly interested to understand can you please explain/point-to any relevant information?
.. it seems to me that someone who releases their code under BSD is not interested where it will end up, whereas someone who releases it under GPL cares. And it does not have necessarily anything to do with being anti-business or communist.
I for instance have nothing against business as a concept in general as long as they behave ethically. And as ethical behavior I consider allowing every one to see a program and use it as they like, including selling it. My justification for that is that a program - even one written from scratch - is always based on the efforts of previous computer scientists and therefore it is unethical to deny one access to that. It would be, for me, like taking advantage of all the physics research which is property of mankind and discovering a new law and telling no one. I have nothing against making money out of it but i consider it unethical to keep the details secret.
So, to come back to the argument, I consider that BSD does not promote computer science, because it doesn't guarantee that computer science benefits from progresses made in it and on top of previous efforts, while GPL does. There is no linguistic misunderstanding here:-)
..or it would have been if there was a way for all user's plug-ins to anonymously share data about the websites they each vet. Sharing that info (Anonymously) with Grisoft will give something back to the company that provides their private users with an excellent piece of software for _FREE_.
Actually they were given the option to hang or to go to Australia, and most of them chose the hangman but were sent to Australia anyway if they misbehaved.
Yes of course i though about the number of weeks (cough):-)
In any case I still don't understand what they can achieve in 6 weeks that they cannot in 4. Why not keep them until they are ready to press charges (forever)? It is not as if they don't violate their human rights in 4 weeks anyway. Why not go the whole way and keep them forever like the US?
I have to say that in 42 days with the UK police (the ones who invented some of the more modern torture methods that don't include physical violence) without charges I would confess to anything, including the fact that I am an elephant.
That is right, for the time being the can only hold you for 28 days http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7449678.stm. It is not as if the UK has the most cameras and the strictest terrorist laws of all of Europe. Nor is it the country that pressed for the European Human Rights Charter to not be part of the EU constitution.:-P
I believe that adults having sex with little kids are perverted and that these kids are not old enough to make up their minds so they need to be protected (I am not sure the same can be said about a 17-year old teenager though with their 22-year old partner). The question is this: -Why is it so different to watch a 40 year old woman sexually abuse a 12 year old boy, than watching one adult killing another? -Why is it illegal at all to watch that, and is it still illegal when it is examined as evidence against these people in court? -What if someone in the courtroom or police station where the material is examined gets aroused? Murder and pederastia are both crimes, and there are laws against those crimes. I don't see what is so special about watching them, and if someone can be sexually satisfied by watching crimes why are they a threat to society?
I believe that adults having sex with little kids are perverted and that these kids are not old enough to make up their minds so they need to be protected (I am not sure the same can be said about a 17-year old teenager though with their 22-year old partner).
The question is this:
-Why is it so different to watch a 40 year old woman sexually abuse a 12 year old boy, than watching one adult killing another?
-Why is it illegal at all to watch that, and is it still illegal when it is examined as evidence against these people in court?
-What if someone in the courtroom or police station where the material is examined gets aroused?
Murder and pederastia are both crimes, and there are laws against those crimes. I don't see what is so special about watching them, and if someone can be sexually satisfied by watching crimes why are they a threat to society?
(Please don't demonstrate your proof with an illustration!:-) )
To reinforce that point, the article in The Age had some detail on the risk posed to parrots. It read something like: "up to 0.6 parrots per year will die". As far as I understand it had to do with State - Federal politics one being Labour and the other Liberal at the time and nothing to do with the bloody parrot. The Federal government blocked a state decision which as far as i know is difficult to overcome.
Actually yes and no. Don't do it by yourself except if you have reason to believe you are the Messiah. If you are certain that something like that is happening you should organise and do that with a group of people having informed the media first.
Waterboarding won't kill you either. It is a practice that is used as a weapon. That practice, along with non-lethal weapons or practices used, are a specialisation of torture and are against the universal declaration of human rights as much as lethal weapons and practices.
Slashdot Mirror
China has arguably the best privacy laws. In China the state really will go the extra mile to protect the privacy of all government agencies that have access to your emails.
You must be referring to this: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149. Well you might be able to block them with deep pigeon inspection. If not a man on the firewall with a shotgun ("Media Sentry") will do the job easily.
Well you have to admit Microsoft has done more for nuclear disarmament than anyone else...
"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people." - Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)
:"The folkish state 1 must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure. It must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so."
was quoted out of context by Rabbi Daniel Lapin in his letter to Julius Streicher and the continuation:
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
is attributable to him. (complete text: http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/lapin.htm) The original passage from Mein Kampf was
You might want it but the US arms industry doesn't : If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industry). Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers... :-)
The European Parliament gets elected directly by the people whereas the other bodies get assigned by the national governments. In regards to whether it is half-arsed or not you will find that the US does not want a united Europe because it will not be able to sell as many weapons / interfere as easily in domestic politics like the various US government bribing groups dictate (see political party donations in the US). If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industries). Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers.
The European Parliament gets elected directly by the people whereas the other bodies get assigned by the national governments. In regards to whether it is half-arsed or not you will find that the US does not want a united Europe because it will not be able to sell as many weapons / interfere as easily in domestic politics like the various US government bribing groups dictate (see political party donations in the US). If you want a sample of what is going on read the story of the Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and who managed to convince the electorate to vote No (see Libertas and Declan Ganley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declan_Ganley and his connection with the US arms industries). Of course it is our fault as Europeans that we let ourselves to be taken in by charlatans and fear mongers.
.. i would say the coldest of the third millenium!
The code is important. The braces are syntactical sugar.
Guido van Rossum is that really you?
....and making sure that potential exploits like buffer overflows are blocked in advance. (Just use a malloc replacement that prevents them.)
Can you please enlighten me on this: I was always under the impression that you will need to overflow a buffer in the stack and overwrite the function return, but the parent is saying that a malloc replacement would overcome that. I am genuinly interested to understand can you please explain/point-to any relevant information?
.. it seems to me that someone who releases their code under BSD is not interested where it will end up, whereas someone who releases it under GPL cares. And it does not have necessarily anything to do with being anti-business or communist.
:-)
I for instance have nothing against business as a concept in general as long as they behave ethically. And as ethical behavior I consider allowing every one to see a program and use it as they like, including selling it. My justification for that is that a program - even one written from scratch - is always based on the efforts of previous computer scientists and therefore it is unethical to deny one access to that. It would be, for me, like taking advantage of all the physics research which is property of mankind and discovering a new law and telling no one. I have nothing against making money out of it but i consider it unethical to keep the details secret.
So, to come back to the argument, I consider that BSD does not promote computer science, because it doesn't guarantee that computer science benefits from progresses made in it and on top of previous efforts, while GPL does. There is no linguistic misunderstanding here
..or it would have been if there was a way for all user's plug-ins to anonymously share data about the websites they each vet. Sharing that info (Anonymously) with Grisoft will give something back to the company that provides their private users with an excellent piece of software for _FREE_.
Actually they were given the option to hang or to go to Australia, and most of them chose the hangman but were sent to Australia anyway if they misbehaved.
Yes of course i though about the number of weeks (cough) :-)
In any case I still don't understand what they can achieve in 6 weeks that they cannot in 4. Why not keep them until they are ready to press charges (forever)? It is not as if they don't violate their human rights in 4 weeks anyway. Why not go the whole way and keep them forever like the US?
I have to say that in 42 days with the UK police (the ones who invented some of the more modern torture methods that don't include physical violence) without charges I would confess to anything, including the fact that I am an elephant.
That is right, for the time being the can only hold you for 28 days http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7449678.stm. It is not as if the UK has the most cameras and the strictest terrorist laws of all of Europe. Nor is it the country that pressed for the European Human Rights Charter to not be part of the EU constitution. :-P
Besides it being the answer to the ultimate question, why was 42 chosen and not 43 or 41?
In short: Is it a crime to watch a crime?
I believe that adults having sex with little kids are perverted and that these kids are not old enough to make up their minds so they need to be protected (I am not sure the same can be said about a 17-year old teenager though with their 22-year old partner).
The question is this:
-Why is it so different to watch a 40 year old woman sexually abuse a 12 year old boy, than watching one adult killing another?
-Why is it illegal at all to watch that, and is it still illegal when it is examined as evidence against these people in court?
-What if someone in the courtroom or police station where the material is examined gets aroused? Murder and pederastia are both crimes, and there are laws against those crimes. I don't see what is so special about watching them, and if someone can be sexually satisfied by watching crimes why are they a threat to society?
I believe that adults having sex with little kids are perverted and that these kids are not old enough to make up their minds so they need to be protected (I am not sure the same can be said about a 17-year old teenager though with their 22-year old partner). The question is this: -Why is it so different to watch a 40 year old woman sexually abuse a 12 year old boy, than watching one adult killing another? -Why is it illegal at all to watch that, and is it still illegal when it is examined as evidence against these people in court? -What if someone in the courtroom or police station where the material is examined gets aroused? Murder and pederastia are both crimes, and there are laws against those crimes. I don't see what is so special about watching them, and if someone can be sexually satisfied by watching crimes why are they a threat to society? (Please don't demonstrate your proof with an illustration! :-) )
Another modification: What if only physical persons as opposed to legal persons (such as companies) can own IP and rights are non-transferable?
To reinforce that point, the article in The Age had some detail on the risk posed to parrots. It read something like: "up to 0.6 parrots per year will die". As far as I understand it had to do with State - Federal politics one being Labour and the other Liberal at the time and nothing to do with the bloody parrot. The Federal government blocked a state decision which as far as i know is difficult to overcome.
Actually yes and no. Don't do it by yourself except if you have reason to believe you are the Messiah. If you are certain that something like that is happening you should organise and do that with a group of people having informed the media first.
Waterboarding won't kill you either. It is a practice that is used as a weapon. That practice, along with non-lethal weapons or practices used, are a specialisation of torture and are against the universal declaration of human rights as much as lethal weapons and practices.
Lets hope its: "The final frontier" for them and that we can move to other universes to avoid them.
Waiter: May i interest you in some culinary dictatorship perhaps? Client: Yes I would love one of those world feared Russian dishes...